74 replies to this topic

[SophieB]

Jon Noble‏ @NobleF1 26s27 seconds ago

More

Is bargeboard development in #F1 now a monster that is out of control?

 

 

Franz Tost:

 

"For example if I would write a regulation, and it would be totally easy, to get rid of all these bargeboard things and all these additional wings.

"These all make the car maybe a few tenths faster, but the picture of the car is not any more so clean, and that is not any more so tidy. Therefore I would simply, from the regulation side, forbid all those things, and it's possible to do this. They just must do it."

 

 

https://www.motorspo...o-boss/3195843/

 

The platonic ideal Tost has in mind:

 

 

I say yes, in this he is entirely correct. Let's go back to the future here because those bargeboards strangle the cost of development AND make the cars look like fat old timey biplanes rather than the miracles of modern engineering I'm sure they are. Glad someone on the grids finally saying it.

[kumo7]

Not only the barge boards,.... 

 

The photo show no rear body works, very limited front wings....

Even though going back is not an option,

In terms of body work restrictions of a racing car there will be many more possibilities, I believe.

[Nonesuch]

I can't help but respect everyone who can look at current F1 cars and identify the barge boards as the #1 aesthetic problem.

 

Well done Franz! Good luck on your quest!

 

But anyway, why F1 thinks bodywork clutter in front of the rear wheels is terrible, but bodywork clutter in front of the sidepod is amazing is, well, typical for F1, I guess.

[TomNokoe]

Bargeboards in combination with the longer wheelbases are unsightly, expensive and create performance gaps between the teams.

[PedroDiCasttro]

The ideal F1 car aesthetics should be similar to IndyCar's current design, in my opinion.

 

[Kalmake]

Lets see Toro Rosso voting different to RBR then.

[Vielleicht]

Don't give a damn tbh. I rarely notice them.

[NixxxoN]

Yes, F1 cars should get rid of all that pile of winglets, bargeboards and aero bits and pieces that make the cars ugly and more aero dependent

[boillot]

The FIA cleaned up the cars in 2009.
Since then all kinds of winglets, fins, barge boards, vortex generators and other aero monsters slowly creeped back (actually I have no idea how, did the aero regs change back?)
And now it’s time to clean it up again. Remove all sticking out bits, narrow down the front wing to within the inside of the wheels and limit it to 2 main elements.

Edited by boillot, 18 October 2018 - 15:22.

[midgrid]

The FIA cleaned up the cars in 2009.
Since then all kinds of winglets, fins, barge boards, vortex generators and other aero monsters slowly creeped back (actually I have no idea how, did the aero regs change back?)
And now it’s time to clean it up again. Remove all sticking out bits, narrow down the front wing to within the inside of the wheels and limit it to 2 main elements.

 

A lot of this was relaxed again for the introduction of the FASTEST CARS EVER! 2017 regs.

[TomNokoe]

A lot of this was relaxed again for the introduction of the FASTEST CARS EVER! 2017 regs.

 

drop 100kg and we'd go just as fast without all the nonsense aero

[boillot]

A lot of this was relaxed again for the introduction of the FASTEST CARS EVER! 2017 regs.

Yes but by 2016 it was already similar as today.

I like Colin Chapman’s general principle of small, light and agile cars and would like the F1 regs going that direction.

[mgs315]

Wasn’t this one of the main ideas behind the 2009 regulation changes?

Yes remove them but also add monster huge venturis.

While we’re at it knock off at least 50kg, introduce a wheelbase limit and allow them to make as much power via recovery as they can.

Edited by mgs315, 18 October 2018 - 16:08.

[PedroDiCasttro]

Yes but by 2016 it was already similar as today.

I like Colin Chapman’s general principle of small, light and agile cars and would like the F1 regs going that direction.

I think all but the manufacturers would like F1 to go in that direction.

[Henri Greuter]

It continues to amaze me how often people write about reducing the weight without any siggestion as of how to achieve it and/or at the expense of what.

Compromise safety with lesser sturdy moocoques?

if we remember that early this year there were teams struggling to reach the weight limit as it was.....

[SonGoku]

Well Franz you have a vote in the meetings, but it's really not your ''own'' vote and we saw that when you voted against the new aero rules in 2019 to clean up the front wings.

[boillot]

It continues to amaze me how often people write about reducing the weight without any siggestion as of how to achieve it and/or at the expense of what.
Compromise safety with lesser sturdy moocoques?
if we remember that early this year there were teams struggling to reach the weight limit as it was.....

A 60-70 cm shorter car would help the case, as well as proportions and elegance.

[PiperPa42]

A 60-70 cm shorter car would help the case, as well as proportions and elegance.

And loosing the bargeboards and the ridicously amount of find on the front wing. That should release a couple of kilogram as well.

[sblick]

I guess it is hard being the pinnacle of engineering and then be aesthetically pleasing.  What do we want the pinnacle of engineering or a nice looking car?

 

I am for a cleaner look by the way, but it sometime conflicts with my thoughts of, "let's see what the engineers can do".

I hardly notice barge boards but all the crap on the front wing and in front of the rear wheels bugs me for some reason

[pitlanepalpatine]

I don't get it, what's so offensive about them?

[boillot]

I guess it is hard being the pinnacle of engineering and then be aesthetically pleasing. What do we want the pinnacle of engineering or a nice looking car?

I am for a cleaner look by the way, but it sometime conflicts with my thoughts of, "let's see what the engineers can do".
I hardly notice barge boards but all the crap on the front wing and in front of the rear wheels bugs me for some reason

Yes but my point is more to make the cars being able to race each other better - with the aesthetics being an additional and welcome benefits. For example, cars are not too wide, they are too long - they used to be 15 cm wider and 80 or so cm shorter at the same time.

Throughout the racing cars history, great looking cars were more often than not very good performers.

And besides, I simply think that such huge spending on all kinds of resources on tweaking the front wing fins and winglets is a kind of l’art-pour-l’artism that F1 can do without. It would be better to open up regulations somewhere else.

BTW, reintroduction of ground effect would solve the problem of the huge empty area on the floor.

Edited by boillot, 18 October 2018 - 22:24.

[beachdrifter]

... and bring back the grid girls instead! Thanks!

[Garndell]

For once I agree with Tost.. but while they're at it they need to ban all these slots, holes & fins appearing on the floors/wings too.  Having seen the new Ferrari floor it's a insanely complicated mess of slots and fins.

 

As far as weight goes, I am fairly sure the V8's weighed less, the current wheels weigh less than the 18" things they plan for a few years time and shaving off some length and aero crap will save 50KG+ easy (probably 100KG+ with the PU switched).  If they can't make safe & fast F1 cars for under 600KG they shouldn't call themselves the best engineers/designers.

[baddog]

They dont need to go down the daft wedge indycar route. Those things look like Homer Simpson drew them.

 

A tweak here or there but aesthetics is not a primary factor, speed is.

[bargeboard]

Nooooooo!

[RPM40]

A lot of this was relaxed again for the introduction of the FASTEST CARS EVER! 2017 regs.

It’s just typical f1, change something then complain it needs changing back, then when you change it back complain some more

[danmills]

In reality, doesn't this just strip success down to being mostly just what engine you have? Wings are fugly but it gives chance to make gains where something as static and fixed like an engine spec cannot.

[RacingGreen]

The barge boards themselves aren't the problem, they just need to be simplified to a single flat surface with no slits and holes and other additional aerodynamic wiggly bits allowed.

 

Edited by RacingGreen, 19 October 2018 - 03:24.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Lets see Toro Rosso voting different to RBR then.

Won’t happen - will it...

[RPM40]

The barge boards themselves aren't the problem, they just need to be simplified to a single flat surface with no slits and holes and other additional aerodynamic wiggly bits allowed.

I find that impressive not ugly. Look at all that engineering

[Christbiscuit]

They need to radically reduce the complexity of the aero and loosen the reins on the engines so there is a lot more power than grip. Who cares about the FASTEST CARS EVER when they’re only fast in qualifying, then have to crawl around in the race because the tyres are made out of putty? Besides, the cameras are so far away from the action they look slower than FE on the telly and the racing action is dreadful. Enough of this wretched formula.

[Henri Greuter]

A 60-70 cm shorter car would help the case, as well as proportions and elegance.

I am in full agreement on that.
But I also know that it all will eventually result into slower cars with laps speed going up.

Have a search on this forum about the outrcry you get here when suggesting to make the cars slower yet more tricky to drive and/or increase the chance of overtaking because of the cars being slower......

BTW, i am for the ban on bargeboards. has anyone noticed already that cars were permited to be wider again but the widest parts of the bodywork on the catr being the outer edge of the floor and barge boards on that same utter edge?

[Huffer]

BTW, reintroduction of ground effect would solve the problem of the huge empty area on the floor.

 

But then we'd have a technology race involving ground skirts, probably making the cars even more ugly.

[midgrid]

The barge boards themselves aren't the problem, they just need to be simplified to a single flat surface with no slits and holes and other additional aerodynamic wiggly bits allowed.

I believe it's illegal to buy this kind of knife in the UK.

Edited by midgrid, 19 October 2018 - 06:40.

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

They rules are slowly getting in the right direction with less complex front wings, brake ducts and rear wing endplates. The bargeboard, floor and volume under the nose should be next to be cleaned up.

 

So far, let's raise a Franz!

 

[Nonesuch]

It continues to amaze me how often people write about reducing the weight without any siggestion as of how to achieve it and/or at the expense of what. Compromise safety with lesser sturdy moocoques?

 
There are plenty more factors that have increased the weight. Like F1 wanting wider cars. Bigger tyres. Huge fuel tanks. Batteries and electric motors. Long chassis - larger than LMP1 cars (!).
 

I am in full agreement on that.
But I also know that it all will eventually result into slower cars with laps speed going up.

 

There are only a few races on the calender (Brazil, Malaysia I know for certain, maybe one or two more) where modern F1 cars have been able to race faster than the much lighter cars of 15 years ago.

Edited by Nonesuch, 19 October 2018 - 07:17.

[kumo7]

I don't get it, what's so offensive about them?

 

I take more like unnecessary aesthetically rather than them being offensive.

[Nemo1965]

Great idea. But I have been paining my head imagining how you could force teams to have cars that are slick and smooth at the front and the sides. 

 

Perhaps this is an idea:

 

'Clause 2B - 144. The surface of the said car should be so smooth that if the FIA-inspectors rub a kitten (felix domestica junior) along any part of the outside the animal will not be hurt.'

[Henri Greuter]

There are plenty more factors that have increased the weight. Like F1 wanting wider cars. Bigger tyres. Huge fuel tanks. Batteries and electric motors. Long chassis - larger than LMP1 cars (!).

I think I am one of the more outspoken people out here against the current frightliners of closer to 6 meters than 5 meter length.
That gearbox casings and spacers are made of carbonfiber, now why should that be? Imagine the weight of a car with a normal all metallic gearbox case.....
As for wider tires etc, I realize all too well it adds up to the weight. I for one would be curious to find out the actual weight of a full set of all the barge boards, excessive front wings etc. would be. I think a number of readers would be surprised to find out how much many aerocrap on a car adds to the weight of the entire car.

Loosing weight is only possible and in a safe manner when sizes etc will be reduced. But since serious aero restrictions are avoided at almost all costs and troubles because of aero are tried to be cured with all kind of other more complicated rules.....

Edited by Henri Greuter, 19 October 2018 - 07:38.

[Pimpwerx]

I want to get rid of them, but not for aesthetic reasons. I think people who care that much about aesthetics have too much time on their hands. I want bargeboards gone because I think it will make it easier for cars to follow each other. I don't much care how the cars look, so long as the racing action is good. That said, I also don't find the old generation of cars to be beautiful. I think modern cars look amazing, even with all the do-dads. 

[Murl]

The modern cars sure are fugly.

 

Get back to what it's all about. A powerful engine, some fat rubber and a driver with big...attitude. All this areo crap does is detract from the essence.

Edited by Murl, 19 October 2018 - 07:46.

[CoolBreeze]

I find that impressive not ugly. Look at all that engineering

And what

 does that solve exactly? It doesn't take you a genius that F1 needs to go back to basics to spice up the entire sport, and give a chance to the smaller teams. I would say the 1997-1998 cars were good and basic enough. 

[CoolBreeze]

The modern cars sure are fugly.

 

Get back to what it's all about. A powerful engine, some fat rubber and a driver with big...attitude. All this areo crap does is detract from the essence.

 

And driver control too ;)

[RPM40]

And what
does that solve exactly? It doesn't take you a genius that F1 needs to go back to basics to spice up the entire sport, and give a chance to the smaller teams. I would say the 1997-1998 cars were good and basic enough.

I preferred the 2014-16 regulations.

[cpbell]

In reality, doesn't this just strip success down to being mostly just what engine you have? Wings are fugly but it gives chance to make gains where something as static and fixed like an engine spec cannot.

Had the FIA not banned things like single corner braking and FRIC, the performance could come from chassis developments as it used to rather than aerodynamic stuff that is very unlikely to be used on road cars due to cost and fragility.

[cpbell]

...

I find that impressive not ugly. Look at all that engineering

It's impressive, but the development costs and effect on th racing isn't desirable, despite the fact that, as an example of modern art, it's actually quite aesthetically-pleasing.

Edited by cpbell, 19 October 2018 - 11:21.

[PedroDiCasttro]

It continues to amaze me how often people write about reducing the weight without any siggestion as of how to achieve it and/or at the expense of what.

Compromise safety with lesser sturdy moocoques?

if we remember that early this year there were teams struggling to reach the weight limit as it was.....

It's simple.

 

Simpler engines and a shorter wheelbase for starters. That's 100kg right there.

[Pete_f1]

The barge boards themselves aren't the problem, they just need to be simplified to a single flat surface with no slits and holes and other additional aerodynamic wiggly bits allowed.

What the nheck is all that about? How much did that cost? Good grief

[phrank]

I find that impressive not ugly. Look at all that engineering

Look at all that money spend that adds nothing to the racing.

[boillot]

And besides, it’s impossible to replicate in 1/43 high-quality model kits! No new cars from Tameo any more!